9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest for the advances received from the buyers on 17-10-2003 and refund claim was filed on 1-12-2003 and same was filed within time as issue has been settled by the Tribunal on 17-10-2003. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd. [2004 (1) TMI 79 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that time limit for refund claim starts from the date when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order allowing the refund claim filed by the respondent holding that same is within time and bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the period 1987-92, the respondent procured certain advance against the goods supplied by them to their buyers. The Revenue is of the view that the interest of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further he also examined the issue of unjust enrichment which has been supported by the Chartered Accountant certificate and the gate passes issued at the time of clearances of the goods and held that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before me. The respondents has also filed a cross objection. 3. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voices produced by the respondent to prove that duty has been paid under protest and has not been recovered from the buyers. I hold that the respondent is also able to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. 5. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue deserves no merit, hence dismissed. Cross objection is also dispose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
